Here come the design patents: new law boosts rights in shapes, designs

One of Apple’s(s appl) key weapons in its legal battle against competitors is a special type of patent that protects the visual appearance of a product. Critics have denounced these patents as a way to own “rounded rectangles” but we may have to get used to seeing a lot more of them.

Last week, President Obama signed a law that will increase the term and scope of so-called “design patents.” The law could offer US designers a new way to fight knock-offs — but some fear it will strain an already over-burdened Patent Office and make America’s troubled patent system even more dysfunctional.

Advertisement

The new design patent law: what it does

Design patents, which protect the ornamental features of an invention, are nothing new. To get a better idea of what they are, imagine a new type of fork that can pick up food better than ever before. The inventor could get a regular patent for the pick-up function — but she could also get a design patent for distinct scrollwork built into the handle of the fork. A more familiar example is the design patents which cover the look and feel of Apple’s iPad.

Few people had heard of design patents until recently when shoe company Crocs used them to chase away rivals or Apple used its design patents to hammer Samsung for allegedly copying the iPhone and iPad. Design patents have also become more popular as the Supreme Court has taken an increasingly dim view of many conventional utility patents. (See the picture at right, posted by leading patent blog Patently-O, for examples of design patents in court right now).

Now, the just-signed Patent Law Treaties Implantation Act of 2012 will see more design patent requests flood in from more places. The main purpose of the law is to harmonize America’s design patent laws with the rest of the world — in particular, by letting “inventors” use a single application filed anywhere in the world to seek design rights in many countries at once. For instance, Ikea could submit drawings of a chair in Sweden and then get a US design patent based on the same application.

The law, which is will take effect in about a year, will also increase the design patent term from 14 years to 15 years and allow applicants to seek 100 different design inventions with a single application.

More rights to rectangles?

Richard Stockton, a patent lawyer at Banner & Witcoff in Chicago, says that, traditionally, the first people to call him about design patents are manufacturers who outsource production to China but then discover the factory owner is replicating their product.

Now, though, he expects the new treaty rules will lead more foreign companies to apply for design patents in the US.

“Asia is very interested. A lot of people think there will be a snowball effect,” said Stockton.

He adds that recent court fights between Apple and Samsung have awakened people to the fact that design patents are easier to get than utility patents.

“I’ve obtained them in 60 days with some elbow grease,” claimed Stockton, adding that a “good rule of thumb” price for a basic design patent application is $2500-$3000 all-in versus several times that for a regular patent. (The 60 day figure might be an outlier — others say it usually takes more than a year).

Stockton says design patents also pack more of a damages punch than regular patents because, if they are infringed, a court must award damages based on the value of the whole invention — not just a patented feature.

More patents, more problems?

Sarah Burstein, a design patent expert at the University of Oklahoma, is skeptical the new law is necessary and fears that lawyers will game design patents in the same way they have done with other parts of the patent system.

“The devil is in the details,” she said in a phone interview, and predicted that more applications will arrive from Japan, Asia and the rest of the world. US designers, meanwhile, can likewise seek rights in more places.

Burstein is especially concerned about how the new law, as it stands, requires the US Patent Office to reject design applications from foreign countries within a certain amount of time. If it doesn’t, under the treaty, the applicant is entitled to design rights in America. And, if a flood of new applications arrive, will the patent office be able to handle them? The office is already struggling to clear backlog and retain qualified examiners with starting salaries that begin around $42,000.

Burstein worries the law’s current structure could lead companies to first seek design rights in countries with weaker standards and then use those overseas rights as a quick way to get design patent protection in the US.

And while the new protections could help US designers in theory, Burstein believes any benefits will not be widespread.

“This won’t help poor design students,” she said.

A bigger question may be why Congress passed the law in the first place. America’s technology and retail sectors are already buckling under a wave of spurious patent lawsuits, many of which involve “patent trolls” using old patents to extort licensing fees. The new law could provide yet more ammunition for the trolls to shake down productive companies.

And while most people would agree that inventors should have the right to stop rip-offs, America already has robust trademark and trade dress rules that let them do just that.

Ultimately, design patents may be yet one more area where America discovers that intellectual property rules are a lot like salt — a little bit can be great but too much ruins everything.

Design examiners could use the work. Different areas of the Patent Office have different backlogs and design has always had one of the tightest backlogs which reduces the overtime and hiring in that area.

Instead of encouraging one to build a better mousetrap, these kinds of patent laws insure all mousetraps will have to look different whether they get the job done or not. Real innovation has gone out the window.

Yeah, just making up more languages for those patent design laws to steal from the public. We know those expensive corporation law firms will never be able to stop, they are paid to making up languages and layered languages then layered procedures. That is the cheapest way for innovation. No real technology researches are really needed. Just pretend we all are those stupid ancient Jewish population, we should let them counting and naming our gods again now.

All this does is unify the design patent rules like they did with utility patents in 1995. Articles like these misstate a lot. They claim the patent system is “broken”. I am an independent inventor, in the US, with over 100 patents and applications, and I make my living inventing new products. It is a lot like songwriting – not every song is a hit. Yes, large companies have an advantage. But to say that patents are stifling innovation – totally false. I could not invest my time and money in new products without patent protection. Nobody can, except those who swipe other people’s designs.

Disgraceful, and exactly the OPPOSITE direction from what the USPTO should be doing.

More proof that Obama is woefully out of touch with the real world and what’s killing “innovation and entrepreneurship” in this country. Total hypocrisy. He just made it even easier for people to use the patent office for exactly what it’s supposed to prevent: the theft of people’s work.

This is going to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. This will cause the cost of consumer goods that have base utility to become more and more inflated. It will end up being big companies who can afford the patents and to attack infringers, vs. the little guys.

The first chapter of my Economics 101 text mentions that if everyone had “replicators” that could magically produce anything one desired, the there would be essentially no need for economics at all. I realize now the flaw in that delightful thought.